New Tournament Medals!

[Qwert]

"i am all for complete recognition

i just don't like the bronze, silver, gold aspect of this suggestion"
yes,if you win in any kind of competition -you get gold medal-now here if you win a tournament you get bronze? I think that no need to 3 diferent thropy,only what you need its to create 3 digit number belove thropy,and problem solve.
Bronze-silver-gold-platinum-diamond- rubin-saphire-smaragd-opal-iridium-what its next?
we start to create more and more ridiculos and pointess designation for only one simple problem-3 digit number.

[Pirlo]

the idea of making the medal count unlimited is cool... I just didn't like the bronze ==> silver ==> gold thing not only for the tournament achievement, I mean for all other medals....

why not making the count unlimited and the achievement number infinite for all medals to keep the race running?

i.e. no bronze or silver..etc thing.. only "Medal" with no color description...

for example, doubles medal = 200 unique defeats... so if I beat 600+ players, my doubles medal will say 3.... if you beat 1000+ players, yours will say 5...

this way, medals will be a good measure to tell how good a player is at doubles, triples, nuclear, assassin....etc.instead of farming a certain number of unique noobs to reach the limit that gives "Golden Medal"....

Cheerz

[Super Nova]

for example, doubles medal = 200 unique defeats... so if I beat 600+ players, my doubles medal will say 3.... if you beat 1000+ players, yours will say 5...

Maybe medals in general need to be more difficult to achieve.

[Pedronicus]

There is currently no differentiation between winning / hosting a large tournament over a tournament that meets the bare minimum players / games.
Can we not address this in the new tournament medals?

[Woodruff]

There is currently no differentiation between winning / hosting a large tournament over a tournament that meets the bare minimum players / games.
Can we not address this in the new tournament medals?

Yes, please.

[HighlanderAttack]

There is currently no differentiation between winning / hosting a large tournament over a tournament that meets the bare minimum players / games.
Can we not address this in the new tournament medals?

I agree that hosting a larger tourney deserves more recognition than hosting a smaller tourney. The problem you run into is who decides what a larger tourney is and who monitors all the tourneys to accomplish something like this.

I do also agree with rescued tourneys getting their own medal--some players have rescued many tourneys and put a lot of time into correcting a deadbeats walk out.

I have not done many rescues, but the one I just took over will end up costing me at least 50 hours when said and done. That is an estimate based on the 8+ hours I have put in already.

[lackattack]

I haven't read all the comments, but the medals MOD doesn't exactly work this way. If you get a higher version of a medal (e.g. silver) it replaces the lower version (e.g. bronze).

[Gilligan]

The numbers look waaaaaaaaaaay off...

BRONZE is 50?! Not everyone has nearly enough time to host 50 quality tournaments, or can join many games in many tournaments to win them. Winning and hosting 50 is hard to do. Doing 100 is completely ridiculous.

By your count, only TWO people will have a Tournament Achievement medal.

[Blitzaholic]

so where are we with this suggestion?

any closer?

[TheForgivenOne]

so where are we with this suggestion?

any closer?

lack and Night Strike already said that the original suggestion probably won't work.

[jricart]

so where are we with this suggestion?

any closer?

lack and Night Strike already said that the original suggestion probably won't work.

Ok, we had a big discussion here meaning something needs to be done, and All that we have back is Probably won't work!

So, is there something that CAN BE DONE?

[blakebowling]

so where are we with this suggestion?

any closer?

lack and Night Strike already said that the original suggestion probably won't work.

Ok, we had a big discussion here meaning something needs to be done, and All that we have back is Probably won't work!

So, is there something that CAN BE DONE?

The mod can work two ways. It can track the amount of medals you have, and add a PNG overlay based on the count (This is the way it currently is used for tournaments - The Roman Numerals are added based on the number of achievements you have) OR Medals can be awarded in a Bronze/Silver/Gold fashion (This is the way game medals work). What you're proposing would take a LOT of changes to the medals mod, and I really don't see the benifits to it. There is already the hall of fame, and who really needs more than 30 tournament medals?

[Pirlo]

I still believe that medal count should be infinite. even game medal as well.. I'd like to see a guy who has 6 doubles achievement medals for example... the current mode is limited to 3 (bronze, silver & gold).. I prefer to see digits growing everytime you beat X unique defeats...

- Andrea the charmer

[Queen_Herpes]

Makes sense, seems like a no-brainer, right? If the current system is limited to 30 per, lets upgrade!

[greenoaks]

Makes sense, seems like a no-brainer, right? If the current system is limited to 30 per, lets upgrade!

if you cough up $25 to assist paying for the programer, lack will let you play an unlimited number of games for a year

[blakebowling]

Makes sense, seems like a no-brainer, right? If the current system is limited to 30 per, lets upgrade!

The thing is, the Roman Numeral Images are only created through 30, so it being "infinite" would be impossible. However even if someone were to create them up to 100, it would take quite a while. I still don't think anything needs to be done.

[jigger1986]

I really like this idea! Like most I do thing the ranges are a bit high though.

Another suggestion I would make is instead of showing your bronze/silver/gold trophies, just show the highest level achieved, just like our singles/d/t/q medals now. So for say 65 tournament wins your wall of trophies ould show just a silver one with the number 65 or even the number 15 (having the silver would signify 50 "bronze" wins already.

Just my opinion.

[koontz1973]

I know this goes against what most people have said, but I do think the actual medals do not need to be changed. Having the trophy with 30 on (at most) and the plaque, again with 30 (at most) is more than adequate.

Saying that, I do think that a medal should be awarded to the players who win over the 30. So for HighlanderAttack who has who has 178 wins and 192 tournaments organized (showing), he should have an extra 310 medals. 178+192-60 awarded = 310. On his profile page, it would remain with the same medal jpegs (30 each) but at the top of the medals it would say 419 medals awarded instead of 109.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way to show appreciation to the best organizers of tournaments would be to give them a title and colour there name. So again, HighlanderAttack would get his name in orange and the title of Tournament Organizer. No extra privileges. Give this to the top 5 organizers. On a certain date each year this can change. Start with the 5 who organized the most tournaments in 2010 and when we get to 2012, the top 5 in 2011 get it. Base this on who organized the most/rescued/ran to completion etc, etc.

These seem simple enough to do as the ability to do it already exists on the site, gives players the extra medals/recognition they deserve and best of all, costs nothing.

[greenoaks]

I know this goes against what most people have said, but I do think the actual medals do not need to be changed. Having the trophy with 30 on (at most) and the plaque, again with 30 (at most) is more than adequate.

Saying that, I do think that a medal should be awarded to the players who win over the 30. So for HighlanderAttack who has who has 178 wins and 192 (showing) tournaments organized, he should have an extra 310 medals. 178+192-60 awarded = 310. On his profile page, it would remain with the same medal jpegs (30 each) but at the top of the medals it would say 419 medals awarded instead of 109.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way to show appreciation to the best organizers of tournaments would be to give them a title and colour there name. So again, HighlanderAttack would get his name in orange and the title of Tournament Organizer. No extra privileges. Give this to the top 5 organizers. On a certain date each year this can change. Start with the 5 who organized the most tournaments in 2010 and when we get to 2012, the top 5 in 2011 get it. Base this on who organized the most/rescued/ran to completion etc, etc.

These seem simple enough to do as the ability to do it already exists on the site, gives players the extra medals/recognition they deserve and best of all, costs nothing.

this got me thinking about how the number one player on CC gets a different icon for rank to all the other players

something similar could be done for the player with the most tourney wins, the most tourneys run, the most maps made, etc

regardless of whether we keep the 30 cap or something different is introduced, the (currently active) player with the most [insert category here] gets an icon a little different to every other player.

[koontz1973]

this got me thinking about how the number one player on CC gets a different icon for rank to all the other players

something similar could be done for the player with the most tourney wins, the most tourneys run, the most maps made, etc

regardless of whether we keep the 30 cap or something different is introduced, the (currently active) player with the most [insert category here] gets an icon a little different to every other player.

These are such a simple ideas that they could be implemented very quickly and as I said, cost nothing. That does seem to be the biggest stumbling block from the sites point of view. Getting the medals made cost money. These ideas cost a little time only.

[Woodruff]

Another way to show appreciation to the best organizers of tournaments would be to give them a title and colour there name. So again, HighlanderAttack would get his name in orange and the title of Tournament Organizer. No extra privileges. Give this to the top 5 organizers. On a certain date each year this can change. Start with the 5 who organized the most tournaments in 2010 and when we get to 2012, the top 5 in 2011 get it. Base this on who organized the most/rescued/ran to completion etc, etc.

Wouldn't this just encourage the already pathetically over-used 16-player bracket tournament, rather than recognizing the more creative tournament organizers who put a great deal of thought, time and effort into their tournaments?

[koontz1973]

Another way to show appreciation to the best organizers of tournaments would be to give them a title and colour there name. So again, HighlanderAttack would get his name in orange and the title of Tournament Organizer. No extra privileges. Give this to the top 5 organizers. On a certain date each year this can change. Start with the 5 who organized the most tournaments in 2010 and when we get to 2012, the top 5 in 2011 get it. Base this on who organized the most/rescued/ran to completion etc, etc.

Wouldn't this just encourage the already pathetically over-used 16-player bracket tournament, rather than recognizing the more creative tournament organizers who put a great deal of thought, time and effort into their tournaments?

If the players want this type of tournament and are willing to play in them, why not. For another discussion is maybe the rules for this type need to be changed.


If someone manages to set up and run 50 1v1 16 player tournaments in a year, and do it successfully, then why should they not get the recognition. It is more work and takes far more time to do this than set up one or two creative tournaments. People who would do this for the recognition would soon find out how much goes into a 1v1 tournament and stop. Looking at the leader boards for TO, you see that very few players organize more than one or two. To get onto page one, you only have to do more than 13.

The players who play a lot of tournaments soon recognize the good organizers and tend to join there ones straight away. Allowing new guys to tournaments a way of recognizing good organizers straight away seems to be an added benefit.

[Woodruff]

Wouldn't this just encourage the already pathetically over-used 16-player bracket tournament, rather than recognizing the more creative tournament organizers who put a great deal of thought, time and effort into their tournaments?

If the players want this type of tournament and are willing to play in them, why not. For another discussion is maybe the rules for this type need to be changed.

If someone manages to set up and run 50 1v1 16 player tournaments in a year, and do it successfully, then why should they not get the recognition. It is more work and takes far more time to do this than set up one or two creative tournaments.

I am afraid you and I will have to disagree on that completely. I absolutely hold that fifty 1-vs-1 16-player tournaments is far less work and time than two large creative tournaments. All they do is plug in names to the same tournament...there's hardly any work involved at all, relatively speaking.

People who would do this for the recognition would soon find out how much goes into a 1v1 tournament and stop. Looking at the leader boards for TO, you see that very few players organize more than one or two. To get onto page one, you only have to do more than 13.

Some of us aren't there because we're doing the large, creative tournaments that take a great deal of time to complete.

I guess the point I'm making here is that quality>quantity, and to reward quantity alone is foolish.

[koontz1973]

Response to Woodruff.

If holding tournaments was easy, more players would do it and in greater numbers. The trophy system now only allows up to 30 wins or 30 organisations.

Only 24 people have the 30 organisation plaque.
Only 13 people have the 30 wins trophy.

The problem of trophy whoring or having people making tournaments just to have the title and coloured name would not occur. The above figures show that or more people would have the 30 plaque and trophy. Tournaments have been a part of CC for a long time now. This problem would of occurred way before now if that was the case.

The point you brought up on which is a more valid tournament (small 16 player 1v1 or a 264 multi game etc etc) is valid. But while the site allows both types to be called tournaments, it will always irk some people.

What is more valid. A large complex tournament with 264 players playing many games and different types or a 2500 person 1v1. At what point does the 1v1 become the largest most complex tournament in CC history.

I guess the point I'm making here is that quality>quantity, and to reward quantity alone is foolish.

So true but who would decide.

[koontz1973]

Franchised tournaments will have all medals removed for those tournaments. In its place will be a special medal description. We currently do not have a new medal specifically for Franchises, but we will request one in the future (if possible).

If money is going to be spent on a new medal, it should be this and not the bronze/silver/gold one people have been asking for.